TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the appeals were passed after 18.6.2018 order dt. 18.6.2018 by which Director-General of Income Tax (Investigation), Karnataka and Goa, Bengaluru, directed the then CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, not to pass any further appellate orders during pendency of the explanation sought on the lapses in adjudicating the appeals. The CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to pass any orders in appeal on or after the aforesaid date. The order passed by him contrary to the directions of the superior officer cannot be said to be an order passed by a person having proper jurisdiction. There is prima facie material on record to show that the orders purported to have been passed after 18.6.2018 and prior to 16.7.2018 were pre dated, which he offered to submit it in sealed cover. Though we declined to look into it, yet, considering the conduct of the then Ld. CIT(A)-11, the stand taken by the revenue appears to be probable. In any case, the very action of then Ld. CIT(A)-11 in ignoring the binding directions given by DGIT and proceeding to pass orders results serious lapse on his part in administering justice. We also notice that all the orders impugned in these appeals have been passed between 5.7.2018 and 13.7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 104/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 1442/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2997/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 16/Bang/2019 in ITA No. 2997/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2990/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 13/Bang/2019 in ITA No. 2990/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2991/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 14/Bang/2019, in ITA No. 2991/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2966/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2967/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2988/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2989/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2987/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2982/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3028/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 148/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3028/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3029/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 149/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3029/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3032/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 152/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3032/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3030/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 150/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3030/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3033/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 153/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3033/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3031/Bang/2018 and C.O. No. 151/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3031/Bang/2018 N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And B.R. Baskaran, Member (A) For the Appellant : K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel For the Respondents : V. Srinivasan, Advocate, Sunil Jain, C. Ramesh and Nagin Khincha, CAs ORDER Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President In all these appeals, the Revenue has requested by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) - 12, Bengaluru. It is the case of the revenue that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11 disregarding the directions issued by the Principal CCIT, has passed orders that are impugned in all these appeals. It is the further case of the revenue that though the impugned orders are purported to have been passed on dates which are prior to 16.7.2018 they were in fact passed after those dates but were pre dated. In support of the claim of the revenue that the impugned orders were in fact passed after 16.7.2018 but were predated, the revenue relies on the circumstance that the date of despatch of the impugned orders has not been entered in the dispatch register maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11. According to the revenue, in view of the fact that the date of dispatch is not specifically entered during the period when CIT(A)-11 was directed not to pass any orders, only inference can be drawn is that the impugned orders were passed after the appeals were transferred u/s. 120 of the Act to CIT(A)-12. By implication the revenue wants to contend that the orders impugned were back dated so as to fall before or on the cut off date of 16.7.2018. 3. It has furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to adjudicate on merits afresh. 5. In support of the Revenue's contention, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the IT AT, Delhi Bench, in the case of ACIT Vs. Globus Construction Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1185/Del/2020 for Assessment Year 2015-16 order dated 08.01.2021. In the aforesaid case, one Shri. S.K. Shrivastava, CIT(A)-1, Noida, was compulsorily retired from Government of India, w.e.f. 11.06.2019. He passed orders pertaining to appeals falling within the jurisdiction of Ghaziabad and only CIT(A), Kanpur had jurisdiction to try those appeals. There was also evidence with regard to findings of Vigilance department. On the above facts, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it has come on record CIT(A)-I, Noida has decided Income Tax Appeals pertaining to Ghaziabad Jurisdiction over which he has no jurisdiction purportedly on 31.12.2018 whereas it is proved on record that all these appeals were disposed of in the month of June, 2019 after his compulsory retirement. It is also proved on record that all the impugned orders have been uploaded on ITBA system between 11th June to 13th June, 2019 after his demitting the office by Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was submitted that the allegation with regard to the orders being anti-dated are all allegations which are not supported by any evidence. 7. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. It is undisputed that the impugned orders in all the appeals were passed after 18.6.2018 order dt. 18.6.2018 by which Director-General of Income Tax (Investigation), Karnataka and Goa, Bengaluru, directed the then CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, not to pass any further appellate orders during pendency of the explanation sought on the lapses in adjudicating the appeals. The CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to pass any orders in appeal on or after the aforesaid date. The order passed by him contrary to the directions of the superior officer cannot be said to be an order passed by a person having proper jurisdiction. The CBDT in its instruction dated 8.3.2018 (F. No. DGIT (Vug.)/HQW/SI/Appeals/2017-18/9959) has in paragraph-7 thereof instructed all Chief Commissioners of Income Tax to conduct regular inspections of the CIT(Appeals) working under them and keep a watch on the quality and quantity of orders passed by them. The instructions further lay down that failure on the part of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders passed by him after 18-06-2018, even if the allegation of pre-dating of orders is not accepted/proved. Hence the impugned orders, in our view, is not curable and sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. On almost identical facts, the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Globus Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held after finding that the impugned orders were passed by the appellate authority after it was divested with powers to pass orders observed as follows: 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. workman 1951 SCR 380 in the identical situation held that Jurisdictional defect strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. 10A. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case cited as Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi held that order/decree passed by court having no jurisdiction is a nullity by returning following findings: There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
